This book was recommended by Norma Blum in another thread about William Blum's book Killing Hope.

Killing Hope, first printed in 1995, is a much larger and more comprehensive and scholarly work that this, but Freeing the World to Death, 2005, is just as powerful in presenting its premise- that US foreign policy is not, and hasn't ever been, what most Americans think it's cracked up to be.

From the introduction:

There's a story about Mae West showing her luxurious home to someone who said "My goodness, what a gorgeous home you have," and West replied "Goodness has nothing to do with it."

Which is what I try to make people understand about American foreign policy. The greatest myth concerning those policies, the conviction that most often makes it a formidable task for people like myself to get Americans to accept certain ideas, is the deeply-held belief that no matter what the United States does abroad, no matter how bad it may look, no matter what horror may result, the American government means well. American leaders may make mistakes, they may blunder, they may even on the odd occasion cause more harm than good, but they do mean well. Their intentions are always honorable. Of that Americans are certain. They genuinely wonder why the rest of the world can't see how generous and self-sacrificing America has been. Even many people in who take part in the anti-war movement have a hard time shaking off some of this mindset; they think, or would like to think, that government just needs to be prodded back to its normal benevolent self.

Then, William Blum lays out the irrefutable facts.

If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

This is exactly what I thought of when I heard reported on tv a few hours ago a report on a Marine grunt talking about his unit busting into a house to look for suspected Taliban and saying that they explained to the family why they were there and the family thanked them for providing the city with safety.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:This is exactly what I thought of when I heard reported on tv a few hours ago a report on a Marine grunt talking about his unit busting into a house to look for suspected Taliban and saying that they explained to the family why they were there and the family thanked them for providing the city with safety.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:This is exactly what I thought of when I heard reported on tv a few hours ago a report on a Marine grunt talking about his unit busting into a house to look for suspected Taliban and saying that they explained to the family why they were there and the family thanked them for providing the city with safety.

Well that would depend on the alternative "providers of order" and who this person they busted into is as regards contacts etc. It could also be politeness in the face of guns.

The opposite fallacy of "america is always right" is of course "america is always wrong". But I agree that the global military hegemony with the trade routes that go with it is a potent motivator for where america cares and where they dont. Just like everyone else, frankly.

PeaceDan

What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

So---OOB==>do you "believe" the family was grateful, or not?? (((Of note: it almost doesn't matter as true or not the "news piece" was still propaganda........ and not everyone else does it, if it has anything to do at all with foreign troops invading private homes (without a warrant?====>>>>bwhahahahah!!)))

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

People tend to believe testimonials even in the face of overwhelming statistical data to the contrary. In a large population, there is almost a certainty that you can find people adhering to a particular position. Whether or not the testimonial is true is irrelevant. If you look hard enough, you will find someone.

What matters is what most people think of the invasion, and you won't learn that from the invaders.

. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:So---OOB==>do you "believe" the family was grateful, or not?? (((Of note: it almost doesn't matter as true or not the "news piece" was still propaganda........ and not everyone else does it, if it has anything to do at all with foreign troops invading private homes (without a warrant?====>>>>bwhahahahah!!)))

As Oleg also noted, it is entirely possible that this particular household would rather see american troops in charge of local security. You will always find someone with whatever opinion in a big country.

Things are usually complicated. Like in Syria where the best bet for minorities and women is that Assad wins, since he has succeeded in islamizing the opposition groups by heavily pummeling the secular opposition and leaving IS alone for years. I bet a large portion of syrians would welcome an international peace keeping force, but since that's not realistic, have to choose between the murderous but secular strongman or islamist nutter rebels.

PeaceDan

What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

She was a very strong Bernie Sanders supporter, one of your people, and while I disagree with her about the ethics and efficacy of socialist economics, I think that she is spot-on about US war-mongering and the power behind the throne in the US.

This a long rant that starts off slowly, but I urge you to sit down with a bottle of wine and watch the whole thing, and see the dots she connects about what's going on in the US. This isn't about conspiracy, just sociopathic imperialist foreign policy as usual brought up to date.

If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Tom Palven wrote:This book was recommended by Norma Blum in another thread about William Blum's book Killing Hope.

Killing Hope, first printed in 1995, is a much larger and more comprehensive and scholarly work that this, but Freeing the World to Death, 2005, is just as powerful in presenting its premise- that US foreign policy is not, and hasn't ever been, what most Americans think it's cracked up to be.

From the introduction:

There's a story about Mae West showing her luxurious home to someone who said "My goodness, what a gorgeous home you have," and West replied "Goodness has nothing to do with it."

Which is what I try to make people understand about American foreign policy. The greatest myth concerning those policies, the conviction that most often makes it a formidable task for people like myself to get Americans to accept certain ideas, is the deeply-held belief that no matter what the United States does abroad, no matter how bad it may look, no matter what horror may result, the American government means well. American leaders may make mistakes, they may blunder, they may even on the odd occasion cause more harm than good, but they do mean well. Their intentions are always honorable. Of that Americans are certain. They genuinely wonder why the rest of the world can't see how generous and self-sacrificing America has been. Even many people in who take part in the anti-war movement have a hard time shaking off some of this mindset; they think, or would like to think, that government just needs to be prodded back to its normal benevolent self.

Then, William Blum lays out the irrefutable facts.

If u presented that to the average joe ~they would probably say ~ that's what theysay about the babysitters on American HorrorStory. It's hard to be prepared when youdon't know the future because they haven't created it yet .

The key to healing is to forgive perfectly. It's the only thing I actually do right hahaha When you forgive perfectly ~ you forget perfectly. Ja whoLoves YouXo.oX

Tom Palven wrote:This book was recommended by Norma Blum in another thread about William Blum's book Killing Hope.

Killing Hope, first printed in 1995, is a much larger and more comprehensive and scholarly work that this, but Freeing the World to Death, 2005, is just as powerful in presenting its premise- that US foreign policy is not, and hasn't ever been, what most Americans think it's cracked up to be.

From the introduction:

There's a story about Mae West showing her luxurious home to someone who said "My goodness, what a gorgeous home you have," and West replied "Goodness has nothing to do with it."

Which is what I try to make people understand about American foreign policy. The greatest myth concerning those policies, the conviction that most often makes it a formidable task for people like myself to get Americans to accept certain ideas, is the deeply-held belief that no matter what the United States does abroad, no matter how bad it may look, no matter what horror may result, the American government means well. American leaders may make mistakes, they may blunder, they may even on the odd occasion cause more harm than good, but they do mean well. Their intentions are always honorable. Of that Americans are certain. They genuinely wonder why the rest of the world can't see how generous and self-sacrificing America has been. Even many people in who take part in the anti-war movement have a hard time shaking off some of this mindset; they think, or would like to think, that government just needs to be prodded back to its normal benevolent self.

Then, William Blum lays out the irrefutable facts.

If u presented that to the average joe ~they would probably say ~ that's what theysay about the babysitters on American HorrorStory. It's hard to be prepared when youdon't know the future because they haven't created it yet .

Tom Palven wrote:This book was recommended by Norma Blum in another thread about William Blum's book Killing Hope.

Killing Hope, first printed in 1995, is a much larger and more comprehensive and scholarly work that this, but Freeing the World to Death, 2005, is just as powerful in presenting its premise- that US foreign policy is not, and hasn't ever been, what most Americans think it's cracked up to be.

From the introduction:

There's a story about Mae West showing her luxurious home to someone who said "My goodness, what a gorgeous home you have," and West replied "Goodness has nothing to do with it."

Which is what I try to make people understand about American foreign policy. The greatest myth concerning those policies, the conviction that most often makes it a formidable task for people like myself to get Americans to accept certain ideas, is the deeply-held belief that no matter what the United States does abroad, no matter how bad it may look, no matter what horror may result, the American government means well. American leaders may make mistakes, they may blunder, they may even on the odd occasion cause more harm than good, but they do mean well. Their intentions are always honorable. Of that Americans are certain. They genuinely wonder why the rest of the world can't see how generous and self-sacrificing America has been. Even many people in who take part in the anti-war movement have a hard time shaking off some of this mindset; they think, or would like to think, that government just needs to be prodded back to its normal benevolent self.

Then, William Blum lays out the irrefutable facts.

If u presented that to the average joe ~they would probably say ~ that's what theysay about the babysitters on American HorrorStory. It's hard to be prepared when youdon't know the future because they haven't created it yet .

OutOfBreath wrote:Things are usually complicated. Like in Syria where the best bet for minorities and women is that Assad wins, since he has succeeded in islamizing the opposition groups by heavily pummeling the secular opposition and leaving IS alone for years. I bet a large portion of syrians would welcome an international peace keeping force, but since that's not realistic, have to choose between the murderous but secular strongman or islamist nutter rebels.

Dan

Well said! Assad, the brutal tyrant who looks like a certified public accountant, has at least the virtue of being secular and neutral on religion. He provides state subsidies for Coptic Christians to educate their children in the Aramaic language. Likewise, Saddam Hussein, who was certainly a swine, nevertheless kept a lid on sectarian violence, and Christians were allowed to live in security in Iraq. The US came in with hob-nailed boots and took him out and set up a Shiite-dominated government. Since then, while there is some semblance of civil rights that Hussein didn't allow, there is also profound mistrust among the three major ethnic/religious groups. Much the same can be said about the former Soviet Union. It was brutal and persecuted all religions, but it also appears to have kept a lid on ethnic violence among the member republics.

I'm grateful for this thread, which has brought to my attention a book I now must read. I remember rejoicing when the USSR finally cracked apart in 1991, and I was even willing to say a few good things about Reagan and Thatcher, who pushed the envelope of detente and forced the USSR to recognize that it couldn't win the arms race. But part of that pressure involved subsidizing the Islamic fundamentalists who were fighting the Soviet puppet regime in Afghanistan. A movie called "Charlie Wilson's War" was made celebrating this---ultimately disastrous and short-sighted---policy. (It also got a slight boost from the james Bond movie "Living Daylights".) Just compare pictures of women in Afghanistan in 1972

with pictures of women there today

to see how they've been driven out of public life. There was once a woman prime minister of Afghanistan, now assassinated, I believe. It might have been different, if GW Bush had concentrated on rebuilding the place after throwing out the Taliban. But he was too eager to get into Iraq and get his hands on some really cheap oil. (And I don't have to give details on how THAT worked out, I'm sure.)

"Relieve yourself of the illusion that you're writing for the ages. The ages will decide who is doing that on their own; you don't get a vote."

So depressing! More atrocities, more Islamic militants created. But we can't let 'em win, right? (Why not, I want to know?) As Blum himself quotes Richard Nixon (1965) in the Introduction to this book,

"Victory for the Vietcong...would mean ultimately the destruction of freedom of speech for all men for all time not only in Asia but in the United States as well."

(It takes a bit of practice to follow Nixon's style. Most people would believe that "for all men for all time" includes the United States. It really wasn't necessary to clarify that point.)

That's the point. The treatment of women in Afghanistan is an abomination, I agree. So, what can we do about it that won't make things worse? I think, nothing, and I think we should just pull out and let events take their course. But of course, that will cause conservatives to invoke that old Domino Theory that LBJ kept citing back in the mid-60s to prove that we needed to keep on incrementally adjusting the size of our military presence in Viet Nam. And then, of course, it was ultimately Nixon who let the Viet Cong (well, really, the NVA) win. He knew by 1971 that he couldn't defeat them, but he was determined to wreak as much suffering and destruction there as he possibly could. It's a great pity he was allowed to die a natural death. He should have faced a firing squad.

"Relieve yourself of the illusion that you're writing for the ages. The ages will decide who is doing that on their own; you don't get a vote."

I was eagerly lapping up "Freeing the World to Death" until last night, when I came across his chapter on anti-Communism. It's quite true that the American fear of Communism and its exploitation by unscrupulous politicians to excuse intervening in populist movements all over the world was a shameful episode. Notice how the bugaboo of Communism got so quickly replaced by the new enemy "militant Islam" (shortened to just "Islam" by the more barbaric of our leaders). Blum and I agree about all that. But he goes farther, disastrously farther in this chapter, when he writes

William Blum wrote:We've all heard the figures many times...10 million,...20 million...40 million...60 million...died under Stalin. But what does the number mean, whichever number you choose? Of course many people died under Stalin, many people died under Roosevelt, and many people are still dying under Bush. Dying appears to be a natural phenomenon in every country. The question is how did those people die under Stalin? Did they die from the famines that plagued the USSR in the 1920s and 30s? Did the Bolsheviks deliberately create those famines? How? Why?....Were milions actually murdered in cold blood? If so, how? How many were criminals executed for non-political crimes? The logistics of murdering tens of millions of people is daunting.

That staggering gallimaufry of intellectual crimes is unforgivable. BLUM IS SCUM!!!

First of all, implying that any attempt to number the victims of Soviet Communism is just a matter of randomly and indifferently choosing an arbitrary number is a total abdication of the responsibility of a scholar.

There is no excuse for his writing this kind of {!#%@}. He could have read Susanna Labin's Stalin's Russia or Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow or the writings of Solzhenitsyn, or even Khrushchev's 1956 denunciation of Stalin at the Party Congress, which was biased in counting mostly loyal Communists who were Stalin's victims. There was plenty written in those days of the Khrushchev Thaw, always emphasizing the "happy ending" that those of the victims who survived the labor camps (and the author chose to write about) were rehabilitated. (Tough toenails for those who died of overwork and exposure.) Bukharin's letters to Stalin pleading for his life are heart-rending. Only a few years ago was this very upright man and loyal Communist rehabilitated, in part through the efforts of Princeton professor and contributor to The Nation Stephen Cohen. I think Cohen is now being rather naive about Putin. He's been defending him consistently over the past few years, apparently choosing not to notice that Litvinenko was killed in London by the FSB, using polonium. The FSB doesn't do free-lance operations. That (and a lot of other suspicious deaths) can reasonably be ascribed to Putin.

YES, Mr. Blum, the Bolsheviks, led by Kaganovich, DID deliberately create the famines by sending "prodotryady" into the villages to take away all the food the peasants had in order to feed the urban supporters of Communism in Moscow. As for why, they did it in order to impose collectivization on the villages, get top-down control of all the agriculture in the country and stamp out any private economic activity. YES, millions were actually murdered in cold blood, one bullet in the back of the head in the courtyard of the Lubyanka prison, or in some obscure labor camp. Almost none of them were executed for non-political crimes. The logistics may seem daunting to Blum, but the Communists were up to the task.

None of this is difficult to understand. You have to be willfully blind not to know the answers to these idiotic rhetorical questions. I'll read no more of this moron's work, no matter how well-researched it may appear to be. I am totally disillusioned.

"Relieve yourself of the illusion that you're writing for the ages. The ages will decide who is doing that on their own; you don't get a vote."

Upton_O_Goode wrote:I was eagerly lapping up "Freeing the World to Death" until last night, when I came across his chapter on anti-Communism. It's quite true that the American fear of Communism and its exploitation by unscrupulous politicians to excuse intervening in populist movements all over the world was a shameful episode. Notice how the bugaboo of Communism got so quickly replaced by the new enemy "militant Islam" (shortened to just "Islam" by the more barbaric of our leaders). Blum and I agree about all that. But he goes farther, disastrously farther in this chapter, when he writes

William Blum wrote:We've all heard the figures many times...10 million,...20 million...40 million...60 million...died under Stalin. But what does the number mean, whichever number you choose? Of course many people died under Stalin, many people died under Roosevelt, and many people are still dying under Bush. Dying appears to be a natural phenomenon in every country. The question is how did those people die under Stalin? Did they die from the famines that plagued the USSR in the 1920s and 30s? Did the Bolsheviks deliberately create those famines? How? Why?....Were milions actually murdered in cold blood? If so, how? How many were criminals executed for non-political crimes? The logistics of murdering tens of millions of people is daunting.

That staggering gallimaufry of intellectual crimes is unforgivable. BLUM IS SCUM!!!

First of all, implying that any attempt to number the victims of Soviet Communism is just a matter of randomly and indifferently choosing an arbitrary number is a total abdication of the responsibility of a scholar.

There is no excuse for his writing this kind of {!#%@}. He could have read Susanna Labin's Stalin's Russia or Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow or the writings of Solzhenitsyn. YES, Mr. Blum, the Bolsheviks, led by Kaganovich, DID deliberately create the famines by sending "prodotryady" into the villages to take away all the food the peasants had in order to feed the urban supporters of Communism in Moscow. As for why, they did it in order to impose collectivization on the villages, get top-down control of all the agriculture in the country and stamp out any private economic activity. YES, millions were actually murdered in cold blood, one bullet in the back of the head in the courtyard of the Lubyanka prison, or in some obscure labor camp. Almost none of them were executed for non-political crimes. The logistics may seem daunting to Blum, but the Communists were up to the task.

None of this is difficult to understand. You have to be willfully blind not to know the answers to these idiotic rhetorical questions. I'll read no more of this moron's work, no matter how well-researched it may appear to be. I am totally disillusioned.

While oddments and coincidence do occur in the world of men, any chance of William Blum every coming upon your thoughtful reply here is between nil and naught. Thus , of course making a response from him, equally unlikely.

So while I do understand your wanting to save your fellow posters here in the Skeptics Forum the same possible painful disillusionment that you are suffering, still... wouldn't your eloquence be better directed to the author himself?William Blum can be reached, or at least your comments can be made known to him, through his publisher: Common Courage Press 1 Red Barn Rd, Monroe, ME 04951(I believe their telephone number is available through the usual public channels.)

Norma Manna Blum

P.S. Before you disappear into the depths of your disillusionment.... certainly everyone SHOULD read everything by anybody with a critical eye (and mind) ... could you perhaps spend a moment or two on what it was that you were "lapping up" before you came upon the heinous chapter? ("Blum is Scum" ...certainly a concise and trenchant review..... doesn't seem to acknowledge your initial positive response to the same author.)

I suspect... although I could certainly be naively incorrect.. that Blum's response to US foreign policies are as correct as his comments on the monstrous excesses of Stalinist predations were misguided.IN my own experience it IS more than possible for a human being to entertain and even wholeheartedly subscribe to, more than one opposing concept at the same time Albert Einstein, for instance never did come to grips with the veracity of Quantum Mechanics. And Richard Feynman, the most eloquent exponent (and Nobelist) among Theoretical Physicists, on behalf of QM, still acknowledged Einstein as the star in the firmament of modern Physics anyway.Equally it is possible to be part of the Anti-Stalinist Left AND maintain a weary , leery eye on American (unworkable) attempts at shoddy (and dangerous) colonialism.NMB

Yes, I have agreed wholeheartedly with nearly everything Blum wrote about the American Empire, which I despise as much as he does. But he (and also Stephen Cohen of late) unaccountably brush off or ignore the atrocities committed by Lenin's heirs. You mention Einstein, and he is yet another example of a man I admire, indeed idolize, who was terribly naive about the labor camps and the show trials. He may not have known that nearly 90% of the people attending the Party Congress in 1928 were executed as enemies of the people. But he was, after all, a physicist, and I excuse him for being naive about politics. He himself suffered from the ignorance and bigotry of the Trump-class Americans of his day. (One out in Kansas wrote an open letter to his newspaper telling Einstein to "take your wicked theory of evolution and go back where you came from.")

"Relieve yourself of the illusion that you're writing for the ages. The ages will decide who is doing that on their own; you don't get a vote."

Yes, I have agreed wholeheartedly with nearly everything Blum wrote about the American Empire, which I despise as much as he does. But he (and also Stephen Cohen of late) unaccountably brush off or ignore the atrocities committed by Lenin's heirs. You mention Einstein, and he is yet another example of a man I admire, indeed idolize, who was terribly naive about the labor camps and the show trials. He may not have known that nearly 90% of the people attending the Party Congress in 1928 were executed as enemies of the people. But he was, after all, a physicist, and I excuse him for being naive about politics. He himself suffered from the ignorance and bigotry of the Trump-class Americans of his day. (One out in Kansas wrote an open letter to his newspaper telling Einstein to "take your wicked theory of evolution and go back where you came from.")

Yes, I have agreed wholeheartedly with nearly everything Blum wrote about the American Empire, which I despise as much as he does. But he (and also Stephen Cohen of late) unaccountably brush off or ignore the atrocities committed by Lenin's heirs. You mention Einstein, and he is yet another example of a man I admire, indeed idolize, who was terribly naive about the labor camps and the show trials. He may not have known that nearly 90% of the people attending the Party Congress in 1928 were executed as enemies of the people. But he was, after all, a physicist, and I excuse him for being naive about politics. He himself suffered from the ignorance and bigotry of the Trump-class Americans of his day. (One out in Kansas wrote an open letter to his newspaper telling Einstein to "take your wicked theory of evolution and go back where you came from.")

You can if you don't want OPEC to decide to sell its oil in euros instead of US dollars. When one ME country does that (Iraq) we simply declare war on the pretense that its leader (Hussein, whom we installed) is a genocidal dictator. But there's not much recourse when all OPEC countries do it.

We're stretched a bit thin to add Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Algeria, Nigeria, Angola, Libya, Venezuela, and Ecuador to the current list of wars we're fighting both directly and by proxy (Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria, as well as random bombings in Pakistan and Somalia).

Just follow the money. It'll usually lead you to the IMF. That's why Libya was destroyed, after all. Money.

"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge."—Carl Sagan

"Every philosophy is tinged with the coloring of some secret imaginative background, which never emerges explicitly into its train of reasoning."—Alfred North Whitehead

"Knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world."—Louis Pasteur

I thought that everybody who could be trained to kill has already been trained in the Middle East. The NATO and the Russians have been training these people since time immemorial.

From time to time some general will appear on TV proclaiming proudly that "our highly skilled killer commandos train people, you know...how to eat with a fork and a knife, how to sit down in a chair...ehhh, and we drop a few bombs in a show of moral support...ehhh"

They must be now emptying the prisons, insane asylums, kindergartens to fulfill the quota for "volunteers" for their training camps.We will teach them how to kill and use the proper table manners at the same time, for freedom and democracy...of course.

When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

Tom Palven wrote:The Pentagon is apparently again trying to purchase a Gurkha-type army to do its fighting in the Mid-East:

It's more like the British private armies in India. You train one group and then train the next group if the first group get out of control. You then train a third group if the second or first group get out of control. When all groups are escalating, you sell them weapons.

The USA's ventures into the middle east are nothing, compared to what the Brits did in India.